This is the sixth in a series of interviews with international experts on North Korea to see how its nuclear issues will unfold down the road and seek ways to secure stability on the Korean Peninsula. ― ED.

By Kim Jae-kyoung

James D. Bindenagel

The dispatch of the United States aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson will raise the risks of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's miscalculation of threats to his regime, warned James D. Bindenagel, a former U.S. Ambassador to Germany.

He said the dispatch draws a red line with unpredictable results, which he believes could lead to a military conflict.

"The problem is that the Trump doctrine seems to be strategic impatience, which provides no analytical basis for policy. Consequently, decisions will be made based on action," Bindenagel said in an interview.

Bindenagel is currently the Henry Kissinger Professor for Governance and International Security at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, Bonn, in Germany.

"The dispatch poses a challenge to the North Korean nuclear weapons program. However, the challenge is not accompanied with a clear demand and creates uncertainty for North Korea to respond. Consequently, the possibility of miscalculation raises the likelihood of conflict."

The warning comes as North Korea has threatened to sink the USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carrier that has joined two Japanese destroyers in the western Pacific Ocean. It is expected to hold a joint drill with South Korean naval ships near the Korean Peninsula.

In order to prevent Kim's miscalculation, Bindenagel, an expert on international security and conflict prevention, called for the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions in cooperation with regional powers.

"In the vortex of powers on the Korean Peninsula, any coherent policy toward North Korea requires the U.S. to work with China, Russia and Japan on concerted diplomatic approaches," he said.

"Talks with North Korea are better than conflict but need a coordinated effort."

In particular, the career U.S. diplomat, who served in South Korea from 1975 to 1977, said China's leverage over North Korea should be used to bring the reclusive country in line.

"China is inevitably party to any resolution of the North Korea conflict. Beijing certainly avoids destabilizing the Kim regime, but potentially could do so," he said.

"That leverage combined with U.S. sanctions and deterrence pressure; Pyongyang could lead China to seek regime change or change North Korean behavior."

U.S. sanctions and deterrence in his words are elements of a concerted policy with China, Russia, and Japan that could make Kim give up his nuclear weapons.

"Sanctions such as the coal ban, and others suggested by the Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) Anthony Ruggiero to stop Chinese financial transactions can and should be pursued," he said.

Seoul should play bigger role

The Germany-based international security expert stressed that Seoul should go beyond acting as a "go-between" for the U.S. and China and play a bigger role in seeking a solution to Pyongyang's nuclear brinkmanship.

"South Korea should play a crucial role in assessing North Korean behavior in diplomatic talks and offering incentives for peace and prosperity to the people of North Korea," he said.

"Seoul is best placed to assess whether Kim will give up North Korea's nuclear program and what it would take to achieve that result."

According to him, one of the most important things Seoul needs to do now is address Pyongyang's perception that the outside world seeks to destabilize the country and pursue regime change.

"Kim Jong-un has used North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons to avoid regime change and ensure he remains in power," he said.

"Sustained threats to his power support his expansion of the North Korean nuclear arsenal."

The retired U.S. Army officer forecast that Kim will continue tests of missiles capable of striking China, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. but such tests are "unlikely to trigger a nuclear war, short of Kim's mistaken assessments of the imminence of the threat to his regime."

As for unification, Bindenagel, who served as an American diplomat in East, West and the united Germany, said South Korea should take a cue from Germany.

He explained NATO provided security for a divided Germany that promoted economic development and European integration.

"The economic benefits were shared with East Germany for four decades through German-German trade arrangements," he said.

"The U.S.-Korea Security Agreement has provided similar benefits to South Korea."

Describing "Korean unification" as a generational project, he said the German Basic Law (Constitution) written in 1949 provided an opening for East Germany to accept the Constitution and unify Germany.

"Developing German interests in unification and providing a legal path gave East Germans the courage to challenge the communist government in a Peaceful Revolution in 1989 leading to unification," he said.